alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Bivins WESTON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28623.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 5, 1956.

Mays & Mays, Dave Miller, J. Ó. Hughes, Fort Worth (Charles Mays, Jr., Fort Worth, of counsel), for appellant.

Howard M. Fender, Crim. Dist. Atty., Fort Worth, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is rape; the punishment, 5 years.

The prosecutrix identified appellant as one of a number of young men who, against her will and despite her utmost resistance, assaulted and ravished her on the evening of April 15, 1955, and appellant’s confession was admitted in evidence without objection, in which he admitted being one of the men who took turns in having sexual relations with the prosecutrix.

The occasion was the same as that shown in the opinion of this court in Tiroff v. State, 297 S.W.2d 826.

The facts were there stated at length and will not be repeated.

*682Appellant testified at the trial and denied that he took any part in the assault upon the prosecutrix or that he had sexual intercourse with her. He testified that he signed the confession because he was scared and had been promisd by the assistant district attorney who took it that if he would sign the statement it would go lighter with him, and that the assistant district attorney asked him if he wanted to go to the electric chair or spend the rest of his days in the penitentiary.

The assistant district attorney denied that any such promise or threat was made and testified that the statement was made voluntarily.

Notwithstanding the confession had been admitted without objection, the careful trial judge in his charge instructed the jury that it was not to be considered if the person taking it made such threat or promise, or if it was secured by means of any character of threat or promise.

In assessing the punishment the jury appears to have considered the matters called to our attention, such as the health condition and prior surroundings and lack of opportunity of appellant, and the indiscreet conduct of the prosecutrix in leaving her children, visiting night spots and dancing and riding with other men while her husband was away.

None of these matters are such as would authorize this Court to set aside the jury’s verdict, amply sustained by the evidence, finding appellant guilty of the offense of rape and assessing the punishment at five years in the penitentiary.

Appellant objected to the testimony of the prosecutrix as to the assault and “judo licks” inflicted upon her by another of her assaulters, after she had been taken some distance from the car.

The objection was on the ground that such acts and conduct occurred outside of appellant’s presence.

The trial court did *not err in*permitting this testimony. All of the acts of appellant and his co-actors during this concerted and continued assault, and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the ravishing of the prosecutrix and her companion were admissible, not only upon the question of guilt but upon the punishment to be assessed. Bowles v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 548, 244 S.W.2d 811.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements as of and for
June 30, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>       0000007431
<NAME>      ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      530
<ALLOWANCES>                                        45
<INVENTORY>                                        432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,066
<PP&E>                                           2,459
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              752
<BONDS>                                          1,282
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           227
<OTHER-SE>                                         460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,044
<SALES>                                          1,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,608
<CGS>                                            1,114
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,114
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   543
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     6
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (107)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (32)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (75)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     113
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        39
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3552

___________ Jon Mills, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Rodney Rutledge, * * Plaintiff, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. State of Arkansas; Mike Huckabee, * Governor of Arkansas; Mark Pryor, * [UNPUBLISHED] Attorney General of Arkansas; Larry * Norris, Director, Arkansas Department * of Correction; Marvin Evans, Jr., * Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, * ADC; John Does, 1 - 12 and Jane Doe, * * Defendants-Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 24, 2003 Filed: June 26, 2003

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.* The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Arkansas inmate Jon Mills appeals the district court’s * denial of Mills's motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134756(48)(49) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134756 

 COA: 267971 

Clinton CC: 95-005901-FH 

ALPHONSO HERNANDEZ-ORTA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s March 7, 2008 order is considered, and it 

is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously. 

WEAVER, J., would grant the motion for reconsideration. 

d0721 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 29, 2008 

 Clerk
#### CASA DE CAMBIO COMDIV S.A. DE C.V., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 02-710.

Supreme Court of United States

March 24, 2003.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
Order entered February 8 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01290
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF: J.C.T AND L.D.T, CHILDREN On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 82
- 17818 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s February 4, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file her brief on or before March 6, 2013.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
Custom er Service Hotline: 1 - 800 - 438 - 2474 UNITED STA

TES ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A GENCY

REGION III 1650 A rch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 - 2029
July 13, 2011 The Honorable Robert M. Summers Acting Secretary , Mary land Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, Mary land 21230 Dear Secretary

Summers : On June 23, 2011 , the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Mary land State I mplementation Plan (SI P) from the Mary land Department of the Environme nt (MDE) . The SI P revision pertains to the adoption of EPA’s C ontrol T echniques G uidelines (CTG) for drum and pail coating and includes amendments to R egulation . 13 under COMAR 26.11. 1 9

– Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes
. EPA has determ ined that the submittal is administratively and technically

complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. If members of y our staff have any questions, they

may direct them to Ms. I rene Shandruk, at (215) 814
- 2166. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking. Sincerely , /s/ Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division
cc: George S. Abur

n, Director, MDE Brian Hug, MDE
**Docket No. FAA -**  **2012 -**  **0106**
Certificate of Trust



  Exhibit 4.2 
   
 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 CERTIFICATE OF TRUST 
 OF 
 BANK ONE CAPITAL II 
  
 THIS
Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust of BANK ONE Capital II (the “Trust”) is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustee, to amend and restate the original Certificate of Trust of the Trust (the
“Certificate of Trust”), which was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware (the “Secretary of State”) on June 16, 1999, as amended and restated by the Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust of the Trust,
which was filed with the Secretary of State on August 1, 2000, under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. § 3801, et seq.) (the “Act”). 
  
 1. Name. The name of the statutory trust is BANK ONE Capital II. 
  
 2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust in the State of Delaware is The Bank of New York (Delaware), White Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711. 
  
 3. Effective Date. This Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being a trustee of the Trust, has duly
executed this Second Amended and Restated Certificate of Trust as of the              day of             , 2004, in
accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act. 
  

			
		
	By:	 	 
	 	 	 Name: Laurence Goldman

	 	 	 Title:   Regular Trustee
|   | 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                            |   |   |                      |                                                 |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |   |   |                      |
| Date:            April 13, 2009 |   | By:    | /s/            Jay Rifkin |
|                            |   |   |                      | Jay RifkinPrincipal Financial                Officer |
EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Jay Rifkin, Chief Executive Officer of Digicorp, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Digicorp for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2005;


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining  disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

      (a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure that material  information  relating to the small business issuer is made
known to us by others,  particularly  during the period in which this  report is
being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's  disclosure
controls and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c)  disclosed  in this report any change in the small  business  issuer's
internal  control  over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially  affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based  on  our  most  recent  evaluation  of  internal  control  over  financial
reporting,  to the small business  issuer's  auditors and the audit committee of
the small  business  issuer's  board of  directors  (or persons  performing  the
equivalent functions);

      (a) all significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely to  adversely  affect  the small  business  issuer's  ability  to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant  role in the small business  issuer's  internal
control over financial reporting.


February 23, 2007



/s/ Jay Rifkin
-------------------------------
Jay Rifkin
Chief Executive Officer
Brent R. Cole Law Office ofBrentR. Cole, P.C. 821 N Street, Suite 208 Anchorage, AK 99501 (907) 277-8001 Attorneys for Redemption Air, Inc. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OFHEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC In the matter of: Redemption Air, Inc. ) ) FAA Case No. 2013AL030106 ) DocketNo. FAA-2014-0115

______________ ) (Civil PenaltyAction) ORDER GRANTINGREDEMPTION AIR'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, IMPOSE SANCTIONS, AND ORDER REDEMPTION AIRBE REIMBURSED Redemption Air, Inc. ("Redemption Air") having moved for an order compelling discovery, imposing sanctions, and requiring the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") to reimburse it for expenses related to the FAA's abuse ofdiscovery and any opposition thereto, IT IS ORDERED that Redemption Air's motion is granted. The FAA shall make Christina Bryant available to be deposed at a time and place convenient for the parties/Christina Bryant's testimony is precluded at the hearing in this matter. Further, Redemption Air is entitled to be reimbursed expenses, costs and reasonable attorney fees for the FAA's discovery abuse and for this motion. Further, Redemption Air is entitled to

Order Granting Redemption Air1S Motion to Compel Discovery, Impose Sanctions, and OrderRedemption Airbe Reimbursed In re: RedemptionAir, Inc., DocketNo. FAA-2014-0115 Page I of2be reimbursed in the amount of$

____for expenses, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees for the FAA's discovery abuse, and for the motion to compel. DATED this

__day ofDecember, 2014, at Valdez, Alaska.

CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE 

# -;\sf This is to certify that on this**~** day of December, 2014, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing document was**~Mailed** 0 Hand-delivered 

## ¥J Faxed to the following: Original and one copy: Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2Wl000 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 One copy: Craig Wm. Black, Esq. Office ofthe Regional Counsel 222 West 7th Avenue, #14 Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 Craig.Black@faa.gov Fax: 271-2800 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov Fax: 202-366-7536

Order Granting Redemption Air's Motion to Compel Discovery, Impose Sanctions, and OrderRedemptionAirbeReimbursed HON. Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge

In re: RedemptionAir, Inc., DocketNo. FAA-2014-0115 Page 2 of2
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 22-0183 

AUG 3 0 n2 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

S.L., 

A Youth in Need of Care. 

Bowct n Greenwood 

Clerk of Supr rne Court 

State nf tvinntana 

ORDER 

Counsel for the appellant mother of S.L. filed a motion and brief asking to be 

allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that counsel has been unable to find any 

nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The mother was granted time to file a 

response, but no response was filed. 

The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), 

MCA, and Anders. We conclude there are no arguments with potential legal merit that 

could be raised in the mother's appeal in this case. 

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to 

the appellant mother personally. 

DATED this day of August, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

08/30/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0183
eSli AI JILIL 

. ;,.....,... . 

Justi es 4.

2
The Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).

Because Harris&s petition was filed in 1995, we do not apply 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 2

as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996,

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3601

___________

Paul A. Harris, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

Appeal from the United States

v. *

District Court for the

 *

Eastern District of Arkansas.

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: November 3, 1997

 Filed: November 6,

1997

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Paul A. Harris, an Arkansas prisoner, appeals the

District Court&s dismissal of his second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 1

(1994) petition as an abuse of the writ. See Cochrell v.

2
Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. See Lindh v. Murphy, 117 S. Ct. 2059, 2068

(1997) (holding AEDPA applicable only to cases filed after its enactment).

-2-

Purkett, 113 F.3d 124, 126 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that

abusive petition raises new claims that were available

but not raised in prior petition; merits of abusive

claims are unreviewable absent showing of either cause

and prejudice or actual innocence) (citations omitted).

While we agree with Harris that a novel legal claim may

constitute cause, see Heffernan v. Norris, 48 F.3d 331,

333 (8th Cir. 1995), the legal argument Harris advances

is not novel and was available to Harris during the

pendency of his first § 2254 petition, see Jackson v.

Norris, 105 F.3d 405, 406 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 118

S. Ct. 125 (1997).

We thus find no abuse of discretion in dismissing

Harris&s § 2254 petition, see Nachtigall v. Class, 48 F.3d

1076, 1079 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), and we

affirm the judgment of the District Court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1595 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1595

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make all veterans 
   eligible for home loans under the veterans mortgage revenue bond 
                                program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2011

 Mr. Blumenauer (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Bilbray, Mrs. Davis of 
  California, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Filner, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. Al Green of 
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas, Mr. Schrader, Mr. Walden, Mr. Wu, Mr. 
Young of Alaska, and Mr. Kind) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make all veterans 
   eligible for home loans under the veterans mortgage revenue bond 
                                program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Home Loan Improvement Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. ALL VETERANS MADE ELIGIBLE FOR HOME LOANS UNDER VETERANS 
              MORTGAGE REVENUE BOND PROVISIONS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 143(l) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(4) Qualified veteran.--For purposes of this subsection, 
        the term `qualified veteran' means any veteran who served on 
        active duty.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to financing provided after the date of the enactment of this Act under 
issues issued before, on, or after such date.
                                 <all>
```